DeFor 2007.

Methods	Randomisation 2 arms: structured walking regimen for 30 minutes a day until 100 days post transplant versus standard care Recruitment period July 2003 to August 2005 Median follow‐up time 100 day posttransplant. Follow‐up measured only for functional impairment (Karnofsky Score) Sample size calculation Not reported
Participants	Eligibility criteria All adults who were able to walk and consented to receive an allogeneic transplant at the University of Minnesota One Participants (N = 100) Intervention group (N = 51) Control group (N = 49) Mean age Intervention group: 46 years Control group: 49 years Stage/type of disease Intervention group: various haematological diseases with diverse stages of disease. Major part: ALL/AML N = 30 (59%) Control group: various haematological diseases with diverse stages of disease. Major part: ALL/AML N = 22 (45%) Country USA
Interventions	Exercise group Twice a day for 15 minutes on a treadmill After discharge, participants were asked to walk once a day for at least 30 minutes. Participants were told to walk at a comfortable speed and to discontinue the workout if they felt any discomfort or dizziness or if the medical staff recommended it.This exercise regimen continued until 100 days posttransplant. Control group Control group were not asked to perform any formal exercise, and were not provided with a treadmill unless requested by the participant or staff
Outcomes	Reported and analysed in this review Overall survival Quality of life Physical performance Reported but not relevant for this review Physical and emotional well‐being at discharge and 100 days posttransplant Perceived benefit (open‐ended question) Length of hospitalisation
Notes	Conflict of interest not reported, funding not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding in this context is not feasible
Blinding of outcome assessor (primary endpoint; mortality)	Low risk	The review authors judge that the outcome mortality in this unblinded trial is unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessor (patient‐reported outcomes)	Unclear risk	Outcome not reported
Blinding of outcome assessor (physical performance, AEs, SAEs)	Low risk	100‐day assessment was performed in a clinic that was separate from the hospital so the physician was unaware of the randomised assignment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not reported